Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36748026›Full record

ArticleMicroplastics and nanoplastics2023

Unfolding the science behind policy initiatives targeting plastic pollution.

Maria Bille Nielsen, Lauge Peter Westergaard Clausen, Richard Cronin, Steffen Foss Hansen, Nikoline Garner Oturai, Kristian Syberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microplastics and nanoplastics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Plastics in the environment in the context of UV radiation, climate change and the Montreal Protocol: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2023.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maria Bille NielsenDepartment of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Lauge Peter Westergaard ClausenDepartment of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Richard CroninMarine Environment Section, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Wexford, Ireland.
Steffen Foss HansenDepartment of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Nikoline Garner OturaiDepartment of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Kristian SybergDepartment of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intensive global plastic production, use and associated plastic pollution have caused concern for the potential risks to human health and the environment. This has led to the adoption of numerous regulatory initiatives aiming to combat plastic pollution. Despite the considerable regulatory activity in the field of plastic, it appears that there is still debate about the actual risks of plastic to humans and the environment. This raises the question of to what extent the current plastic regulation is evidence-based, a declared ambition in the European Union. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate to what extent key policy initiatives targeting plastic pollution are based on scientific evidence. Selection of initiatives was based on expert elicitation accounting for the opinions of persons involved in the development of the policy initiatives, and a thorough assessment of the historical development of plastic pollution regulation, with focus on their importance both with respect to regulation of plastics as well as their historical importance as drivers for societal actions on plastic pollution. We find that scientific evidence appears to be generally present in the scientific foundation for the policy initiatives analysed in this study. All the initiatives are supported by scientific articles and reports about among others plastic sources, ecological impacts of plastic production and consumption patterns. Marine litter monitoring data was found to contribute to the evidence base for 4 out of the 6 policy initiatives and thereby appears to be one of the central scientific drivers behind the societal actions on plastic pollution. Other scientific tools applied when shaping the policy initiatives include risk assessment, impact assessment and life cycle assessment. Despite the prevalent consideration and application of scientific evidence, there seems to be a broad recognition in the preparatory work of the initiatives that there is still a lot of uncertainty related to determining the harm of plastic pollution. In these cases, taking precautionary actions seems however to be justified, recalling not least the precautionary principle. As the issue of plastic pollution is complex and still subject to uncertainty, it seems important both that policy initiatives allow for flexibility and continuing adjustment to the on-going knowledge generation and that the scientific community provides the needed research to continue the science-informed policy development.

Indexed as

Better regulationPlastics pollutionPolicy initiativesRisksScientific evidenceUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID36748026
PMCPMC9894511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.